From	Phil Jones	Date	Thu May 26 11:15:11 2005
To	Kevin Trenberth
Subject	Re: Ch 3
Kevin, I'll broach it with the UK people. Need to consider timing in November, once we get the comments or maybe after the ChCh meeting. Been to Boulder in Jan and Feb before so know what to expect ! Early Feb would seem best. Not thought about going to the AMS so won't. A few problems with Figures today. Hopefully they will get resolved in the not too distant future. Dave E has at least sent one email. Seeing our granddaughter on Saturday, but should have some good time for the Chapter on Sunday and Monday (at home). Cheers Phil At 17:11 25/05/2005, you wrote: Hi Phil I am attaching the updated Fig 3.4.? I have also in .ps that can be converted if need be. Dennis has also plotted the Fu data and I'll send a version a bit later. But need to have consistent colors. I am encouraged that the text is getting a lot better. The FOD is approaching close to what will be final, we should find. After that point the figs should only be updates and minor changes, and the text is modified to respond to comments, that we will have to address more systematically next time. The SOD does become close to final: still subject to all the reviews and late breaking material. Key thing is for you and me to make sure we converge, and don't do a wholesale replacement of a section without careful checking. I have decided not to attend AMS AGM next year in January so that I can work on the SOD. I would be glad to invite you to come for a visit for a week and I suspect we can also come up with some funds to help: at the price of a seminar. e.g. we could split it by you doing airfare and we do local accommodation or vice versa? This summer Tom Stocker is here and working with Jerry on chap 10. I think it could be worthwhile, main question is best timing. Perhaps late Jan or early Feb? That time of year can be cold here: usually not that much snow or if it does snow it does not last long in Boulder: great skiing nearby if you are interested in that. Mean T in Jan is about 0C but highs not uncommon about 10C, and have been over 20C with chinook. Cold at night. So good idea. Cheers Kevin Phil Jones wrote: Kevin, Things seem to be coming in. Will work on 3.5-3.7 tomorrow. 3.2 and the Appendices now back with David. The Appendices read pretty good - lots of useful background material. It will be shame to lose it to a web site. Once David gets these back these should be almost good enough to go out to all on July 15 (or whenever we said). A thought kept recurring - there must be a better way to do this ! Although the FOD reviews will be different from the ZOD (and many more), I'm prepared to come to Boulder for a week in early 2006 if needed. I think I can get the money from the UK to do this. Question is will be it be worthwhile. Better if we were both locked away somewhere other than one of our institutions, but then we wouldn't have the infrastructure, support (email, printers etc). Anyway, give it some thought. You'll know more than I do about some much the FOD and SOD change. Q is whether a week or a fortnight is sufficient. If we knew that a few of the key people in the chapter were at their desks, the text should show a marked improvement. Assuming here the majority of the Figures set by then - just a few need updating. Cheers Phil At 17:03 24/05/2005, you wrote: Hi Phil Thanks for update: monday is a holiday here: Memorial Day, seems weird that Brian is working? My approach to the revisions at this stage is not to take the material sent and wholesale replace it, but cautiously compare and insert if it makes sense. i.e. you and I need to act as editors with a fairly strong hand. I suspect 3.7 may have some useful material but it could degrade the section by further adding material that is not especially relevant. I'll bet it does not shorten it, which is desired still. I am clearly not on same page as Brian wrt clouds and radiation, and I am interested in his take on it all, given the new material and changes. I am not a fan of Norris' stuff. We have updated Fig 3.4.1 on water vapor thru 2004: the ocean trend drops to 1.2%/decade. So you can help a lot by putting your take on the 3.4 stuff: it may also require some careful wording to accommodate different views if we can't see eye to eye. For instance, on the dimming, the recent Pinker paper uses ISCCP and I simply don't believe the trends from ISCCP at all. Saying Wielicki and ISCCP agree actually damns them both. Or similarly saying Norris and ISCCP agree causes problems (this relates to upper cloud, which Norris gets from total minus lower, but those two sets of data are not homogeneous: there is not a lower cloud ob for every total; using means, esp zonal means without differencing each ob potentially causes major problems). Dennis is starting on the 3.6 figs today plus the Sahel one. Cheers Kevin Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [2]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [3]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/ P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk 2. mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu 3. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/